The Delhi High Court has dismissed a tenant’s revision petition challenging an eviction order, holding that an earlier order granting leave to defend does not amount to a final finding in the tenant’s favour on the issue of bona fide requirement.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in a judgment dated August 6, 2026, held that the High Court’s power under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence as if it were hearing an appeal.
Background Of The Case
The dispute concerned two rooms, a kitchen and a common latrine on the ground floor of property No. 228, Sarai Pipal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. The Rent Controller had earlier allowed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act and directed the tenant to vacate the premises.
The tenant challenged that decision on two principal grounds. First, it was argued that since leave to defend had initially been granted over the question of alternative accommodation, the Rent Controller could not later reach a contrary conclusion regarding the landlord’s bona fide requirement.
Second, the tenant argued that the requirement relating to a specially-abled daughter could no longer survive after her subsequent death.
Court's Observation On Leave To Defend
The High Court rejected the first contention, explaining that an order granting leave to defend only means that the tenant has raised an issue requiring examination through evidence.
“The grant of leave only opens the door for the parties to lead evidence on the triable issue,” the Court observed, making it clear that such an order does not finally decide the issue in favour of the tenant.
The Court noted that the Rent Controller had considered evidence recorded after leave to defend was granted, including witness cross-examination and the accommodation available to the family. Therefore, the final finding was based on the evidence produced during the proceedings and not merely on the earlier prima facie view.
Daughter's Subsequent Death
The Court also declined to accept the argument that the subsequent death of the specially-abled daughter automatically ended the landlord’s bona fide requirement.
It noted that the requirement was not confined to the daughter alone. The Rent Controller had considered the overall residential needs of the family, including the occupation of the other floors by the landlord’s sons and their families and the suitability of the remaining accommodation.
The Court further held that it could not substitute its own assessment of the family’s residential requirements unless the Rent Controller’s conclusion suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity, manifest illegality or an error apparent on the record.
Decision
The High Court found no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, manifest illegality or perversity in the Rent Controller’s decision. It held that reassessing the evidence regarding the suitability of alternative accommodation would amount to exercising appellate jurisdiction, which was outside the limited revisional power available under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition along with the pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Anil Kumar v. Smt. Pushpa Devi (Deceased) Through LRs
Case Number: RC.REV. 204/2023
Judge: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Decision Date: August 6, 2026
-300x169.webp)
